On Jan 29, 2014, at 8:46 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
On 29 January 2014 23:34, Donald Stufft <donald@stufft.io> wrote:
If I'm wrong, then by all means show me where it was discussed so I can admit I was wrong.
You have the burden of proof backwards there. You're the one asking me to break backwards compatibility, and to let people continue to believe wheels are only a partial replacement for eggs - it's up to you to make the case that waiting until wheel 1.1 (which, again, has nobody committed to writing it and a completely unspecified timeline) is a superior approach to clarifying something I thought was already documented when I accepted the PEP (and is certainly inherent in the design of the format).
The zipimport compatibility didn't need to be discussed much because it was there in Daniel's original wheel design - there was never any proposal to use a zipimport *incompatible* approach, so nobody had to campaign in favour of zipimport compatibility.
Cheers, Nick.
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
So what did you mean when you said “We discussed it extensively before PEP 427 was approved” if you’re now saying that it wasn’t discussed. ----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA